Whats wrong with systemd ? it has greatly simplified GNU/linux, even stallmann says its fine
Whats wrong with systemd ? it has greatly simplified GNU/linux, even stallmann says its fine
Jeremiah Price
Other urls found in this thread:
serverfault.com
phoronix.com
suckless.org
web.archive.org
without-systemd.org
twitter.com
Hudson Ross
There's a LOT of reasons why people don't like it, and I think the people who don't like it all likely have their own reasons for not liking it.
Here's a posting about someone discovering a massive memory leak that used up 4GB of ram. While I have yet to see something this massive, I have definitely noticed Systemd using more memory than the alternatives, and some leakage here and there as well.
serverfault.com
Some see it as an unnecessary security risk due to its massive attack surface. It recently hit 1 million lines of code.
phoronix.com
Some don't like it because they dislike its habit of scope creep. The project ends up assimilating things that historically should not have anything to do with init. gif related.
suckless.org
There's also some other design decisions that people have an issue with, such as using Google DNS by default (because of course systemd can handle DNS), using binary logs, etc.
Lastly there's the conspiracy theory side of it, which alleges that systemd is an NSA attempt to compromise GNU/Linux, and due to Systemd as a project moving way too fast, it can't be properly audited.
web.archive.org
For more links and arguments, see:
without-systemd.org
Julian Thompson
Who you gonna believe, Jow Forums or Richard Stallman?
Dominic Hernandez
for more on the DNS issue, see pic related
Brayden Richardson
pic related the motherboard bricking
David Morales
A common argument in Systemd's defense is that it shortened script length considerably. However, that's only true when comparing Systemd to Sysvinit. Other solutions make this point moot.
This is a common tactic of poettering shills. They'll find the worst possible thing to compare their trash to that makes it look most favorable, while COMPLETELY ignoring all other alternatives.
This same thing happened with PulseAudio, with poettering comparing it to OSS, even though that was already depreciated and replaced with ALSA
David Stewart
and of course, systemd's code quality is just plain terrible. See pic related and the recent System Down vulns, which didn't get patched until A MONTH after discovery.
Julian Sanders
but it's okay! Pooterring is rewriting it in Rust, so we're safe! /s
Sebastian Price
The funny thing is, systemd's design would anger probably at least 95% of GNU/Linux users (probably including you too) IF it was anything but the init system.
I know some of you think the "Unix Way" is just a meme, but it's actually the reason you can do shit like pipe terminal commands into each other. It's THE reason you have components you can wrap your brain around which can all be pieced together and managed in a simple and flexible way. That's what the Unix Way does.
You want another great example of the Unix Way? Ironically systemd is a GREAT example of the Unix Way. Not in its design though, but in its mere existence.
Have you ever realized how absolutely amazing it is that a new piece of software as fundamental as PID 1 could be swapped out in all of our major distros (even "stable" ones) in only a few years time?
The significance of that cannot be overstated. And yet, although systemd owes its success to the Unix Way which made it so easy for them to step in, it undermines the Unix Way in its own design.
Do you think 20yrs from now when systemd is old and busted that it will be so easy to swap it out with something better? Well not only is the scope of this thing which needs to be replaced now _massive_ compared to what it used to be, but you'd also probably have to rewrite a lot of other software, or beg the developers to change their dependencies.
It doesn't matter if systemd works. You didn't start using GNU/Linux because it "works" did you? You started using it because it allowed you to be the master of how your data flows, and it allowed you to combine things in ways nobody else on GNU/Linux was doing to get exactly what you want.
Quit being led astray by the "just works" argument when it comes to systemd just because init systems aren't something you care to play around with and customize all that much. That shouldn't matter, and we should stick to the tried and true design principles that have served us so well all these years.
Jonathan Hall
Very real disadvantages of systemd:
1. systemd is tied to a specific kernel and a specific libc and specific device manager and specific journaling daemon, basically, having systemd means you're locked in to a whole lot of other things.
2. systemd is renowned for locking up during startup and boot when you have network filesystems.
3. systemd hardcodes quite a lot of the booting and shutdown process in C which other systems place in easily editable scripts.
4. systemd in practice requires quite a lot of things: ACLs, PAM, dbus, polkit, these are not hard requirements but without this the above advantages are lost so all distributions enable them at compile time.
5. logind starting to do retarded shit like user sessions and having retarded power management, in theory you can disable logind, but no distribution again does this.
6. systemd is very monolithic and comes in one configuration compared to being able to piece your system together yourself.
7. systemd appropriates the cgroup tree and takes control of it and completely messes with any other user of the cgroup tree and really wants them all to go through systemd, systemd was wirtten basically on the assumption that nothing but systemd would be using cgroups and they even tried to lobby to make cgroups a private prioperty of systemd in the kernel but that went no-where.
8. systemd's usage of cgroups for process tracking is a fundamentally broken concept, cgroups were never meant for this and it's a good way to fuck resource usage up.
9. systemd has a hard dependency on glibc for really no good reason.
Christian Sullivan
10. systemd relies on DBus for IPC, as the name 'Desktop bus' implies DBus was never written with this in mind and it shows. DBus was written to facilitate IPC within a single desktop session, not as a transport during early boot. This is why systemd wanted to push kdbus heavily beause kdbus solved some of the problems inherent to DBus being used as IPC during early boot.
11. systemd's security and general code quality practices are less than stellar, a lot of security bugs pop up in systemd due to its insistence of putting quite a bit of code in pid1 and quickly adding new features and quickly changing things.
12. systemd creates dependencies and is a dependency of things for political reasons in order to encourage people to pick these things. This is not conjecture, Lennart has admitted multiple times that he creates dependencies to 'gently push' everyone to the same configuration
13. systemd is monolithic for its own sake. It's basically product tying to encourage people to pick an all-or-none deal to again gently push towards this consistency.
14. Lennart Poettering, the face of systemd and its lead dev is the biggest primadonna FOSS has ever known who continues to shift blame and demand that entire world adapt to his designs.
Levi Perez
posters: 3
Landon Campbell
Whats the easiest distro to use that doesnt have systemd ?
Justin Murphy
Just use systemd. It's better.
Isaiah Jenkins
Yeah I fucked youths on my pc trying to setup dnscrypt-proxy on fedora29.
Kayden Kelly
>Rust
Unironically based if true
Hudson Morales
this copy/paste effort: FUCKING OLD.
Isaac Ortiz
MX Linux
>just submit, goyim!
Noah Clark
stallman, any day of eternity. getting advice from the local clueless retards here could be hazardous to your systems.
Levi Powell
I know the Install Gentoo meme isn't what you want, but Gentoo makes it really easy to not use systemd unless you choose to.
Luis Hernandez
ive only delt with ubuntu so far
Robert Green
Void Linux
Zachary Hernandez
>Whats wrong with systemd ?
There's a race condition every time I start my computer. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.
Justin Lopez
(you)
>this copypaste shilling suckless again
Nathan Williams
>this thread again
System D has only complicated GNU+Linux
Connor Butler
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as systemd, is in fact, NSA/systemd, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, NSA plus systemd. systemd is not an init system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning NSA system made useful by the NSA backdoors and broad buggy system that touches as many components as possible and runs at PID 1. Many computer users run a modified version of the NSA system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of the NSA backdoor which is widely used today is often called “systemd”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically an NSA rootkit, developed by the NSA and forced onto the Linux community with their public shell company Red Hat. There really is a systemd, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the backdoor they use. systemd is the kernel or host: the software the NSA backdoor resides in that collects all your private data. The host software is an essential part of an NSA backdoor, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete rootkit. systemd is normally used in combination with the NSA operating system: the whole system is basically NSA with systemd added, or NSA/systemd. All the so-called “systemd” distributions are really distributions of NSA/systemd.
Gabriel Ramirez
Somebody really wants us to not like systemd.
Kevin Long
install gentoo
William Martin
honest kek
Jace King
>tied to a specific kernel
As that one fag put it, the current UNIX world consists of Linux and then some rounding errors.
>specific libc
Basically the same.
>specific device manager and specific journaling daemon
Its own implementations thereof, where syslog-ng is still usable with it.
>renowned for locking up during startup and boot when you have network filesystems
This is a misconfiguration problem of distros.
>systemd in practice requires quite a lot of things: ACLs, PAM, dbus, polkit, these are not hard requirements but without this the above advantages are lost so all distributions enable them at compile time.
Have you ever thought that the actual solution to a problem would be Install Gentoo?
>cgroups
This is what I'm actually curious about. What were cgroups initially intended for and how is service process mangling violating that concept?
Adam Lee
It's not systemd what's wrong, it's that one developer who refuse to see anything wrong with systemd
Jaxson Bailey
systemd is a giant blob of bullshit junk code that has no real practical purpose beyond making Red Hat the proprietor of the ecosystem and making your system shittier.
There is literally no real advantage it offers over sysv init even.
All it does is it reimplements stuff that doesn't need to be reimplemented (in a metric fuckton of garbage spaghetti code that doesn't actually add any useful features), consumes existing projects and bundles it all into a single colossal monolithic turdlog.
Fractionally faster boot times don't mean shit and even if they did, look, there's runit and now there's OpenRC.
systemd is literally the definition of bloatware.
It's huge, it doesn't actually do anything useful compared to alternatives and if I wanted a layer of crapware in between the kernel and the user turning my operating system into a fecal black box, I'd use Microsoft Windows.
Just being garbage is one thing, and if that's all there was to it, I wouldn't give a single fuck about it, but the fact of the matter is that it acts like literal cancer, consuming vital system utilities and making more and more software depend on it (by the power of Red Hat) until it finally becomes unavoidable (which is in fact the end goal).
Figuratively speaking, it's akin to a giant tentacle monster slowly extending it's tentacles and closing in to rape you and even though it hopefully never will, it still makes people uncomfortable enough to be vocal about it.
Gavin King
I hope to god this is true
Juan Campbell
my complaints are RAM usage, battery life impact (I tripled my X220's battery life moving from debian to devuan), and poettering.
I think systemd is based on a good idea, don't get me wrong. However, Poettering is a spineless, dismissive cunt with an atrocious record of closing issues without responding, and being wishy-washy towards reported bugs.
Parker Ramirez
I'd like to ask a dual question: what features/qualities does systemd introduce?
Jayden Garcia
wow this thread is garbage. I had a good answer to your question OP but it'd be like throwing a diamond into a sea of shit.
Nathaniel Russell
That is a bullshit article and you know it.
systemd will only fallback to google dns if a system is badly configured or has missing dns entries
Easton Clark
why did you even bother to post that
Jose Jackson
to express my disgust
Joshua Long
how do i unsubscribe from your gay blog
William Rodriguez
OP here, please do
Gabriel Campbell
I'm not asking you to give a shit about me, I'm telling you you're fucked unless your clear your brain of its worms.
Juan Clark
Nolan Wood
how do i unsubscribe from your gay blog
Hudson Jenkins
because the systemd design is too monolithic. it's so much harder to modify than its predecessors (and competitors). when you're constantly putting together and throwing away linux distros (and I don't mean meme distro hopping, I mean actual sysadmin) it's much easier to "configure initramfs" than "hack systemd" (this is how systemd literally describes modifying their init system, which is accurate).
that's why I don't give a fuck about arguments that point out bugs and shit, even if they did succesfully remove all the desktop bugs it would be a problem and something worth attacking. this is not the actual fight here.
Xavier Jenkins
that's retarded though. the kernel is just fine as it in C, OOP has its uses but it's definitely not worth forcing into kernel development.
Lincoln Smith
>I don't give a fuck about arguments that point out bugs and shit, even if they did succesfully remove all the desktop bugs it would be a problem and something worth attacking
I agree.
The problem with systemd is that it's your typical overengineered hammer-seeks-nail technology.
It's bloat purely for the sake of bloat and only makes things more complicated.
The epitome of everything wrong with the software industry today.
Also, the way it's pushed down everyone's throats really doesn't sit well with me.
Sebastian Cruz
I don't mind it. it clears so much of the headaches and obstacles that normal people do not and will not ever have the patience for.
>but muh POSIX
special snowflake OSs has gotten in the way of Linux long enough.
Xavier Ross
The system should not fall back to Jewgle, EVER. Having the OS default to CIAnigger DNS should be a crime.
Lucas Wood
I wonder how many people aren't going to read this and freak out. Literally says that it won't be used except as a fallback so this is firmly on the user.
Robert Nelson
>the kernel is just fine as it in C, OOP has its uses but it's definitely not worth forcing into kernel development.
No, it really isn't. It's too big already and you're a moron since the kernel uses object based abstractions heavily. Linux would be better off as c++ or rust at this point but only held back by c due to all the gcc abusing c shit it does.
Christopher Rogers
Stallman only cares that systemd is free software and that it isn’t collecting info on you
Gabriel Butler
systemd == botnet
Alexander Bennett
SystemD is up there in terms of my software concerns.
I know that having a service oriented architecture is nice and it makes things modular but their can come a time where there are too many services for one sysadmin to maintain.
No system should be that complex or, at the very least, it should expose a simple and elegant interface.
Dominic Price
...